Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 98

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Request for Stay 97 ; ORDER STAYING All Proceedings in This Action Pending January 18, 2018, Settlement Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/25/17. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR STAY
(ECF No. 97.)

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC

STEWART MANAGO,

vs.
D. DAVEY, et al.,

15

ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN
THIS ACTION PENDING JANUARY 18,
2018, SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the

20

Complaint commencing this action on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds

21

with the First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D.

22

Davey, A. Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively,

23

“Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 13.)

24

On August 9, 2016, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing

25

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of January 6, 2017, for the parties to

26

complete discovery, and a deadline of March 7, 2017, for the filing of pretrial dispositive

27

motions. (ECF No. 45.) On September 8, 2017, the Court extended the discovery deadline to

28

October 6, 2017, and the dispositive motions deadline to December 6, 2017. (ECF No. 89.)
1

1

On September 6, 2017, the court granted in part Plaintiff’s first motion to compel and

2

ordered Defendants to produce a redacted copy of Lieutenant Donnahue’s July 2, 2004,

3

Confidential Memorandum within thirty days. (ECF No. 61.)

4
5

On September 19, 2017, the court issued an order scheduling a settlement conference
for this case for January 18, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 96.)

6

On September 22, 2017, Defendants filed a request to stay the proceedings in this action

7

pending the settlement conference. (ECF No. 97.)

8

II.

MOTION TO STAY

9

The court has inherent authority to manage the cases before it. Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

10

299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power

11

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of

12

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the

13

exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”)

14

Stays of proceeding in federal court . . . are committed to the discretion of the trial court. See,

15

e.g., Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987).

16

Defendants request a stay of the proceedings in this action until after the January 18,

17

2018, settlement conference. Defense counsel declares that on September 11, 2017, she spoke

18

with Plaintiff, who indicated he would be willing to seek a stay of discovery, including

19

production of the July 2, 2004, confidential Memorandum, in this action should the matter

20

proceed to a settlement conference. (Decl. of Annakarina De La Torre-Fennell, ECF No. 97

21

¶4.) Defendants argue that if the court does not stay this action, the discovery and dispositive

22

motions deadline will occur prior to the settlement conference, which could resolve this case in

23

its entirety, resulting in the parties unnecessarily spending additional time and money on this

24

matter. (Id. ¶7.)

25

The court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice. However,

26

Defendants have shown good cause for a stay of the proceeding in this action until after the

27

January 18, 2018, settlement conference. Therefore, the court shall stay this action until after

28

the settlement conference. If the settlement is not successful, the court shall set new deadlines
2

1

for Defendants to produce a redacted copy of Lieutenant Donnahue’s July 2, 2004, Confidential

2

Memorandum, for the completion of discovery, and for the filing of dispositive motions.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Defendants’ request for stay, filed on September 22, 2017, is GRANTED;

6

2.

All proceedings in this action are STAYED until after the settlement conference

7
8

scheduled for January 18, 2018; and
3.

If the settlement is not successful, the court shall set new deadlines for

9

Defendants to produce a redacted copy of Lieutenant Donnahue’s July 2, 2004,

10

Confidential Memorandum, for the completion of discovery, and for the filing of

11

dispositive motions.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 25, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3